I need help with two questions

(1) The Supreme Court ruled that police officers can perform a “stop and frisk” in public to make reasonable inquiries as to a person’s conduct as long as they meet certain criteria. Based upon the five criteria found on page 187 of your textbook, do you agree or disagree with these justifications? Why or why not?

(2) Sum up this quesiton in your own words : 

First the criteria is used when a police observes unusual conduct which leads them to reasonably conclude that criminal activity may have occurred, person maybe armed and dangerous, the police officer announces himself as being a police officer, wants to make a reasonable inquiry, and for his own safety.  I do agree with these justifications because the officer is first looking out for the safety of others including himself and using skills learned detecting an early sign that a crime might have been commented.  If in a neighborhood there is a problem with drugs and gang members and an officer while driving through locates a group standing on the corner.  The officer would likely get out and question the reasoning why hanging out on the corner.  If one of the subjects starts to run or tries to leave the group when the officer approaches the body language already makes them suspicious. The officer might stop the subject and for his own safety due to the subject trying to leave frisk the subject then the officer has met the criteria of a stop and frisk.  If for any reason for the safety of himself and others mainly due to the body language the subject displayed.